-
Jack Rhoton and Katherine E. Stiles
Exploring the Professional
Development Design
Process: Bringing an Abstract
Framework into Practice
Designing effective professional development programs requires a
deliberate process in which careful consideration is given to
numerous
inputs into the framework design. The improvement of student
achievement in science education continues to be a top priority
in the US. The National Commission on Mathematics and Science
Teaching for the2�st Centurywrites: “Themost direct route to
improving mathematics and science achievement for all students is
better mathematics and science teaching” (2000, p.7). Others agree,
suggesting that investments aimed toward improving education should
focus on the preparation and ongoing professional development of
teachers and other educators (Darling-Hammond&McLaughlin,�999).
While few would argue with these observations, improving teaching
is a complexundertakingfacedwithmany challenges.
For example, demanding standards and changing demographics
present challenges. Educating highly diverse students to meet much
higher standards requires tremendous skills on the part of
teachers. Teachers today need to provide a wide range of learning
experiences connected to what a diverse student body knows, how
they learn, and the content and structure of the disciplines
(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, �999; Ball & Cohen,
All of the majorimprovement initiatives call for increasing
teacher knowledge and skills because of the link between student
achievement and teacher knowledge and skill.
�999). Teachers need opportunities over time to deepen their
understanding of how children learn science and to stay abreast of
emerging technologies and research. Veteran and novice teachers
alike need collegial arrangements that provide a structure through
which they continually develop their expertise as teachers.
Professionaldevelopmentof teachers is clearly an essential
element of science education reform.
All of the major improvement initiatives call for increasing
teacher knowledge and skills because of the link between
studentachievementand
teacherknowledgeandskill.Research shows that teacher expertise
can account for about 40 percent of the variance on students’
learning in reading and mathematics achievement – more than any
other single factor, including student background (Ferguson, �99�.)
Other studies show a similar correlation between teacher expertise
and student achievement across the subject areas.
Since teacher expertise has such a demonstrated impactonstudent
learning, it stands to reason that programs that develop teachers
’knowledge and skills are a sound investment in improving student
outcomes. However, the researchon learning (Bransford, et al.,
�999) and that on effective teacher development (Sparks &
Hirsch, �997; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, �998),
suggests that teacher development as carried out in most schools
today is notdesigned todeveloptheteacherexpertiseneededtobring
about improvedstudent learning.“The content of professional
development is largely techniques, its pedagogy is training, and
the learning it promotes consists of remembering new things to try
in the classroom” (Thomson & Zeuli, �999, p. 353).
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 �
-
Figure 1
From: Loucks-Horsley, S., P.W. Hewson, N. Love, & K.E.
Stiles. (�998) Designing Professional Development for Teachers of
Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press
The professional development systems and structures in most
schools need to be redesigned to develop and support capable,
knowledgeable and expert teachers. One framework for designing
professional development has informed thedesignandimplementation of
programs across the country. In the book, Designing Professional
Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics
(Loucks-Horsley, et al., �998), the authors describe a framework to
guide the design of professional development programs. It is a
process of decision making and conscious design based on several
inputs (see Figure �).
At the center of the framework is a planning cycle incorporating
goal setting, planning, doing, and reflecting. The circles
represent important inputs into both goal setting and planning that
can help professional developers design programs to meet the needs
of the audiences and that are grounded in best practice. The inputs
guide designers to consider the extensive knowledge bases that
inform their work (knowledge and beliefs), to understand the unique
features of their own context, to draw on a wide repertoire of
professional development strategies, and to incorporate designs to
address the critical issues
they are most likely to encounter. The arrows represent the
continuous need to reflect: reflection can influence every input
and is necessary since the design will continue to grow and change
over time, resulting in the need to modify and adapt the existing
design to meet the emerging needs of the program.
However, this is only a framework and bringing it to life
requires “getting inside the developer’s head” – exploring how
individual designers struggle with each critical issue, examine
their own beliefs and knowledge, consider the myriad combinations
of strategies available to them, and carefully
Science educator 2
-
consider the contextual issues within which the professional
development program will be implemented. This article iswrittenwith
thatgoal inmind. One of the authors of the book, Katherine Stiles,
interviews Jack Rhoton to explore how East Tennessee State
University’s PD Program reflects the process of designing effective
professional development programs for science teachers.
Stiles: In order to have a context for understanding the
specific design ofyour
professionaldevelopmentpro-gramforscienceteachers,describethe
overall structure and the professional development strategies of
the ETSU PD program.
Rhoton: We’ve learned after more than a decade of working with
science teachers and local school districts that short-term,
one-shot workshops don’t greatly enhance teachers’ learning or the
transfer of that learning into teachers’ classrooms. Our current
program is designed to provide ongoing professional development for
teachers’ professional growth and colleagueship.
First, the model emerging from this twelve-year partnership
differs from traditional professional development paradigms in that
it offers continued support and teacher training throughout the
academic year. Second, it requires the simultaneous development of
instructional skills, administrative insights, and content
expertise. Third, it is a grass roots effort involving teachers who
implement and maintain the changes. Subsequent to a two to six-week
science leadership institute held on the ETSU campus during the
summer, teachers return to their respective schools to implement
the instructional innovation promoted by the program in the context
of their own unique teaching arrangement.
Feedback from teacher participants is used as a focus for
planning and developing training institutes the following
summer.
A two to six-week institute is typically held during the summer
months. The mode of delivery during the intense summer institute
consists of seminars and structured learning environments in which
an accurate portrayal of content knowledge is presented in the
context of inquiry and problem-solving strategies. Teachers
andadministratorsengage inselecting and adapting curriculum to meet
the needs of students. The institutes focus on content and pedagogy
to produce teacher leaders and principals who are well trained to
work with their colleagues. The appropriate usage of technologies,
materials, and activities are interwoven throughout the institutes.
As participants increase their knowledge of content and teaching
strategies, theyenrichthedepthof their experience by exchanging,
exploring, and reaching among themselves.
The institutesaredevelopedaround a theme that has been selected
by the participants. The participants engage in
learningexperiencesappropriate for their particular grade level or
subject area.Aspartof theseactivities,visiting academicians and
science educators develop participating teachers’ requisite content
knowledge, methodologies, teachingstrategiesandleadership skills
for working with their peers.
Subsequent to the summer institutes, participants return to
their respective schools to implement the science program. During
this process, universitysciencefacultyprovidesongoing support for
participants during the academic year. These visits allow faculty
to gather information from teachers and principals as they
implement the professional development
Professional Development Strategies
■ Immermsion: • Immersion into Inquiry
in Science • Immersion into the
World of Scientists
■ Curriculum • Curriculum
Implementation • Curriculum replacement
Units • Curriculum
Development and Adap-tation
■ Examining Practice: • Action Research • Case Discussion •
Examining Student
Work and Thinking, Scoring Assessments
■ Collaborative Work: • Study Groups • Coaching and Mentor-
ing • Partnerships with Scien-
tists in Business, Indus-try, and Universities
• Professional Networks
■ Vehicles and Mechanisms: • Workshops, Institutes,
Courses, and Seminars • Technology for
Professional Development
• Developing Professional Developers
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 3
-
model as well as to support teachers subject matter standards,
curriculum in their classroom environment. Par- content, pedagogy,
andassessment) in ticipants in the program work with engaging
science teachers in the kinds Even though wetheirpeersby
leadingmonthlyscience of study, investigation, and experi are
beginning to inservice training sessions, observe mentation needed
to identify and alter peer teachers and teach model science
classroom practices that increasingly learn what science lessons,
and assist peers in analyzing aspire to enhance students’
scholastic teachers’ professional and selecting instructional
materials growth.Theknowledgebase inprofes development in afor the
classroom. sional development continues to grow
Stiles: Your program reflects a
asarangeofprofessionaldevelopment climate of science combination of
professional develop- strategiesareusedand tested (Loucks education
reform ment strategies: summer institutes,
Horsley,etal.,�998).Recognizingthat
teachers serve as a critical link should look like, the
betweenthesciencecurriculum traditional trainingKnowledge and
Beliefs and their student, professional model dominates the
■ Learners and Learning development is an essential element in
the development science education
■ Teachers and Teaching of teacher leadership skills landscape.■
The Nature of Science (Rhoton, 200�). For example,
several major documents have
■ Professional Development
highlightedthecentral rolepro- look like, the traditional
training ■ The Change Process fessionaldevelopmentplays in
modeldominatesthescienceeducation
science teaching and learning, landscape. Short-term,
skill-training academic year learning sessions, including the
National Science Edu- sessions and one-shot workshops far
classroomobservations,collaboration cation Standards (National
Research outnumberwell-plannedandexecuted with scientist partners,
and coaching Council, �996) and Blue Prints for professional
development programs and mentoring. One of the critical Reform in
Science, Mathematics, and conceived in teacher research. Critinputs
into designing professional Technology (AAAS, �998). ics of the
traditional methods of development is the knowledge and Even though
we are beginning to professional development charge beliefs
designers have about effec- learn what science teachers’ profes-
that teachers are too often placed in a tive professional
development. In sional development in a climate of training
paradigm that is fragmented your description, you indicate several
science education reform should in content, form, continuity and
out goals: enhancing teachers’ profes- of step with current science
education sional growth and colleagueship, and reform (Sparks &
Loucks-Horsley, deepening teachers’ science content �990; Kyle,
�995; Lieberman, �995). knowledge and pedagogical content There has
been a The new perspective on professional knowledge. What
knowledge and proliferation of development demands a greater
facilbeliefs about effective professional ity among teachers for
integrating sci-classroom and school development led you to
identify these encecontent,developmentofeffective specific goals
and select the strategies based studies during
learningenvironments,andorganizing that you implement? the past two
decades students’opportunity tolearn(Loucks-
Rhoton: There has been a prolif- Horsley, et al., �998). The
emerging that have led toeration of classroom and school based
strategiesofprofessionaldevelopment studiesduringthepast
twodecadesthat advances in approaches represent a challenge to the
traditional have led to advances in approaches
professionaldevelopmentmodel in the in professional in professional
development of sci- context of present reform.development of
scienceence teachers. These advances have Based on our long history
of part-centered on complex challenges (e.g., teachers. nering with
local education agencies
Science educator 4
-
to provide professional development, First, the principal of
each par- gaged in the learning process and take
researchonprofessionaldevelopment ticipating school should
participate on the role of the student. Effective and how teachers
learn, and practice- as co-equals with the teachers in the teaching
practices should be modeled based experience, we know that the
program (principals participated in to teachers just as the teacher
should most effective professional learning the K-6 institutes
only). There are model effective teaching to their own experiences
for teachers are those that the matters of teacher time, structural
students. As teachers assume the role are grounded in teachers’
practice. arrangements, cultural norms, and of the student, they
are better prepared This necessarily includes a deeper professional
development to support to implement the strategies with their
understanding of the science content teacher learning, all of which
affect own students. Fifth, the program knowledge, an understanding
of the student learning, either directly or in-
shouldprovideinstructioninneeds-asways in which students learn
science, directly.Theprincipalwhorecognizes
sessmentandprogramdevelopment to andthecriticalon-goingsupport
teach- the crucial importance of school-and enable participants to
design projects ers need to implement new teaching district-based
initiatives can use his to meet their own needs. Even though
practices in their classrooms. or her influence, power, and
authority anecdotal evidence may be useful in
Stiles: In essence, you designed to help shape these variables.
Second, some situations, it does not provide your program around
the belief that the program should address issues defensible
criteria to determine the professional development should be of
concern recognized by teachers
program’svalue,utility,orsignificance ongoing and extend over time,
collab- themselves, including both content to the intended change.
When evaluaorative in nature, embedded in teach- and pedagogy.
One-size-fits-all pro- tion uses inquiry techniques, it is more
ers’practices and needs, and systemic fessional development does
not, in likely to lead to recommendations in
fact, meet the needs of all teachers. relation to the intended
purpose(s) of Teachers at different stages in their the innovation.
teaching career will require profes- Sixth, the program should
ensional development to meet their courage collaboration through
team
Teachers at different specific needs. Teacher perceptions
leadership development. Teachers stages in their about student
learning, confidence consistently rank professional de
in subject matter understanding, and velopment activities that
take place teaching career will pedagogical beliefs will affect
student require professional learning. development to meet Third,
scientists from biology,
chemistry, and physics should particitheir specific needs. pate
fully in the partnership. Content Isolation and autonomy specialist
can help teachers learn sci- in schools have the ence in new ways
and to assist teach- potential to undermineand supported. Other
aspects of the ers in reorganizing and refining their
program also reflect your knowledge content understanding that
supports collegiality among and beliefs about effective profes-
standard-based practices. These ex- teachers. sional development.
For example, periences allow teachers to genuinely in your
description, you imply that address change and renewal and reach
teams participate in the professional
beyondthe“makeandtake”workshop close to the working environment
development program. Why do you session to more global, theoretical
as the most important. Isolation include both classroom teachers
and conversations that focus on teachers’ and autonomy in schools
have the administrators in the program? understanding of the
processes of sci- potential to undermine collegiality
Rhoton: Actually, there are seven ence teaching and learning
and of the among teachers. As teachers become prerequisites for
participation in the students they teach. Fourth, the pro- aware of
peers’ classroom practices, program, all of them grounded in our
gram must be connected to classroom they are more likely to develop
the firmly held beliefs about effective practices.Like their
students, teachers confidence to critically analyze their
professional development. learn best when they are actively en- own
work and ideas. Effective profes-
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 5
-
sional development programs involve teachers in the sharing of
knowledge with a focus on building teachers’ communities of
practices rather than focusing on the efforts of individual
teachers. Seventh, a field support system should be in place to
assist the teams in implementing their program and providing
training for other teachers in their schools. The model allows for
teachers to work together, rather then perpetuating isolation. It
allows for teachers to visit other classes, participate in training
sessions, and teachcooperatively. It is for this reason that the
principal is an integral part of the program. Principals are
trained to make those structural changes that include physical
space facilities and schedule changes to make it possible for
teachers to effectively implement the science curriculum.
Stiles: It is clear that ETSU has not embarked on implementing
this program alone. You have other part-ners and resources involved
in the project. Some of the context inputs
Context ■ Students ■ Teachers ■ Practices ■ Policies ■
Resources
Also, a major asset of the project’s activities has been to
establish collaborative relationships with educational institutions
and other groups interested in improving pre-college science
teaching and learning.
the resources available through the community. You mentioned
that you haveadecade-longhistoryofcollabo-rating with local
education agencies to provide professional development for science
teachers. How does this program incorporate the numerous
relationships you have established and nurtured over the years.
Rhoton: With financial assistance from local education agencies,
the Westinghouse Foundation, the Tennessee Higher Education
Commission, the Nat ional Science Foundation and most recently,
the
■ Organizational Culture Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
■ Organizational Structures ETSU has served ■ History of
Professional Development asapartner in train
ingmore than three ■ Parents and Community
into designing professional develop-ment are a focus on the
organizational structures, the history of professional development
in the organization, and
hundred teachers and administrators
in the region’s schools. East Tennessee State University
worked as a partner with science consultants, local science
teachers and
school administrators to develop the professional development
model. The levels of success achieved in the numerous inservice and
professional activities conducted by the graduates of Science
Education Leadership Institutes could not have been
accomplishedwithout theadministrative support and understanding
that came from the central involvement of the building principal.
Also, a major asset of the project’s activities has been to
establish collaborative relationships witheducational
institutionsandother groups interested in improving precollege
science teaching and learning. Universities and school districts
are encouraged to cooperate in the development of programs to
provide joint preparation of teachers and principals for leadership
roles in the improvement of science education. It is an alternative
that should be considered as the nation’s educational institutions
continue to address the issues of science education reform.
Stiles: You’ve already highlighted several critical issue
inputs into de-signing professional development: building a
professional culture, developingleadership,andsupporting standards
and frameworks. Another critical issue in the design of
profes-sional development is the evaluation of the overall program.
In what ways have you collected data about the ef-fectiveness of
the program and what have you learned?
Rhoton: As I noted earlier, participants in the program work
with theirpeersby leading monthlyscience inservice training
sessions, observe peer teachers and teach model science lessons,
and assist peers in analyzing and selecting instructional materials
for the classroom. The data collected fromtheseactivities reveal
the following outcomes: training and teacher
Science educator 6
-
support occurring over an extended period of time, selecting and
adapting curriculumtomeet individualneedsof teachers and students,
networking of teachers with the principal, increased collaboration
between teachers in the school, development of leadership
qualities, and growth in guiding students in active scientific
inquiry. Perhaps themost immediatebenefit
to the sponsoring school districts was
theincreasedinstructionalandcurricular skills and content mastery
of the teammembers.Dataonperformancein sciencecontentweregathered
through pre- and posttests for each institute. Although participant
performance varied in the institutes conducted
Critical Issues ■ Ensuring Equity
the same grade level taught by other teachers in
thesameschoolwhodidnot participate in the institutes extended over
a six year period (�99�-�997). Baselinedataweregatheredonstudent
science mastery each fall. Pretest data on the performance of
Institute groups were analyzed across grade levels by using a
series of t-tests to compare the mean content score of each group
with each other group. Posttests were administered near the end of
the year, and the same comparisons were carried out on these data
to assess student gains (p < .0� in most cases, and p < .05
in others). As a group, the Institute students made larger gains
than students taught by teachers who did not
■ Building Professional Culture ■ Developing Leadership ■
Building Capacity for Professional Learning ■ Scaling Up ■
Garnering Public Support ■ Supporting Standards and Frameworks
through
Professional Development ■ Evaluating Professional
Development
from �989 through 2000, the project group as a whole showed
significant gains (p < .0� of approximately �2%
incontentmastery).Thegreatestgains were observed in physical
science (9.6%) and earth and space science (�4%); and gains of 9%
in life science. However, the ultimate criterion for success of any
education program is student performance. To evaluate this
dimension of the program effect, comparison studies of students
taught byinstitute teacherswithstudentsfrom
participate in the institutes. Perhaps the greatest benefits,
however, was that the schools found within their own ranks the
leadership needed to find and follow a new direction in science
teaching.
Conclusion The PD Program at ETSU clearly
exemplifiesmanyofthedecision-making processes engaged in by the
professional developers as they designed the program for teacher
learning and
classroom teaching. Obviously there are numerous aspects of the
design framework that were not explored in this article. However,
this brief look into thedeliberateprocessofdesigning professional
development – considering thenumerous inputs into thedesign – helps
bring an abstract framework intothepracticesof thosewhocontinue to
work diligently to improve science teaching and learning in our
schools.
References American Association for the Advance
mentof Science. (�998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (�999). Developing practice,
developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional education. In Teaching as the learning profession,
(Eds.Darling-Hammond&Sykes).San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp.
3-32.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R.
(�999).Howpeople learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (�999). Investing in
teaching as a learning profession: Policy, problems and prospects.
In Teaching as the learning profession, (Eds. Darling-Hammond &
Sykes). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 376-4�2.
Ferguson, R.F. (�99�). Paying for public education: New evidence
on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28
(2), pp. 465-498.
Kyle, Jr. W.C. (�995). Professional development: The growth and
learning of teachers as professionals over time. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 32 (7): 679-68�.
Lieberman, A. (�995). Practices that support teacher
development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76 (8): 59�-596.
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 7
-
Loucks-Horsley, S., P.W. Hewson, N. Love,&K.E.Stiles.
(�998). Designing professional development for teachers of science
and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
NationalCommissiononMathematicsand Science Teaching for the 2�st
Century (2000).Before it’s toolate.Washington, D.C.: US Department
of Education.
National Research Council. (�996). Na-tional science education
standards. Washington,D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.
Rhoton, J. (200�). School science reform: Anoverviewand
implications for the secondary school principal.
Na-tionalAssociationofSecondarySchool Principals Bulletin, 85
(623): �0-23.
Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (�997). A new vi-sion for staff
development.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development and Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development
Council.
Sparks, D., & S. Loucks-Horsley. (�990). Models of
staffdevelopment. In Hand-book of research on teacher educa-tion,
edited by W.R. Houston. New York: Macmillan.
Thompson, C.L. & Zeuli, J.S. (�999). The frame and the
tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In
L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 34�-375). San
Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Jack Rhoton is professor of science education at East Tennessee
State University in Johnson City, Tenn., and currently president of
the Tennessee Academy of Science (TAS). His special research
interest is in the area of professional development and its impact
on science teaching and learning.
Katherine E. Stiles is a Principal Investigator/Project Director
for several science education and professional development projects
at WestEd, including the National Academy for Science and
Mathematics Education Leadership. She has also worked with the
Center for Science,Mathematics,andEngineeringEducation at the
National Research Council and the National Institute for Science
Education on projects focused on national science education
standards and professional development. Among her publications is
the book Designing Professional Development for Teachers of
Sci-ence and Mathematics, co-authored with close friend and
colleague Susan Loucks-Horsley.
Science educator 8
http:staffdevelopment.In
-
Brian Drayton, Joni Falk
Inquiry-oriented Science
As a Feature of Your School
System: What Does It Take?
Key characteristics of the inquiry-based science classroom are
described in the context of both school and district.
At present, much of the discussion and teachers across the
country have climate can shape the implementation of science
education is cast in terms been engaged in an arduous process of
inquiry in the classroom, either sup-of the national or state
standards, and of interpretation and implementation. porting or
hindering this complex and the associated accountability move-
Whatdoes“inquiry”mean?Whatwill urgent innovation. ment. Yet behind
the policy debate itdemandof the teachersandstudents?
1. The inquiry strategyare long-standing challenges for sci-
Whatkindsofcurriculumwill support ence educators, such as: What is
the it? How is it to be assessed? The inquiry strategy has three
root right thing to teach? How best shall In the course of a
research project ideas. The first is a view of the sub-we teach it,
in what order, and to on middle-school science teachers’ ject
matter: What is the science to be what level? How shall we
recognize interpretationsand implementationof learned? The second
is a view of the successful learning of science? What inquiry
mandates,� we have come to learner: How does learning proceed?
skillsandcharacteristicsareneededfor see that thesequestionsmustbe
joined a good science teacher? The current by others which probe
the school movement to define and implement and district cultures
which are the curriculum standards has adopted “atmosphere” within
which science If the systemic nature “inquiry” as one critical
component classrooms live. In this article, we of science education
of a strategy for an effective program draw on our own and others’
research is not borne in mind,of science education. In responding
to to situate key characteristics of the standardsmandates,
schools,districts, inquiry-basedclassroomin theschool we suggest
that the
and district context. If the systemic solutions which the nature
of science education is not borne in mind, we suggest that the
inquiry approach
In responding to solutions which the inquiry approach can
contribute to the can contribute to the perennial chalstandards
mandates, perennial challenges lenges of science education will
not
schools, districts, get a fair trial in actual practice, and of
science education and teachers across thus join the parade of
partial reforms will not get a fair trial
that litter the landscape of American the country have in actual
practice, andeducation.been engaged in an
Inthispaper,webrieflycharacterize thus join the paradearduous
process of key features of the inquiry strategy, of partial reforms
that
and discuss important characteristics interpretation and of an
inquiry-oriented classroom. We litter the landscape of
implementation. address how the school and district American
education.
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 9
-
Inquiry-basedscience is a strategyfor addressing this challenge,
by placing ahigh emphasis on thedepth of conceptuallearning, rather
than on the remembering of the results of science… Thethird
isaviewof the teacher: How does the teacher facilitate the growth
of science understanding?
What is the science to be learned? Anyone promulgating a science
curriculum faces the challenge of science
asabodyofknowledge.Science isvast and growing, not one field but
many. Furthermore, the results of scientific investigation mount up
— it is commonplace to talk about the “exponential growth” of
scientific information. The problem of how to determine the “right”
scope and sequence of content in the curriculum finds repeated
solutions – one after another in successive waves of reform. The
intractability of the challenge is not new – Dewey noted it in
�9�0:
“One of the most serious difficulties that confronts the
educator who wants … to do something worthwhile with the sciences
is their number and the indefinite bulk of the material in each …
There is at once so much of science and so many sciences
thateducatorsoscillate,helpless, between arbitrary selection and
teaching a little of everything.” (Dewey �9�0)
Inquiry-based science is a strategy for addressing this
challenge, by placing a high emphasis on the depth of conceptual
learning, rather thanon the remembering of the results of science
(Drayton and Falk 2000, NRC 2000); the key here is making the tools
and methods of knowledge creation a core part of the curriculum.
Only thus can we overcome the problems risked by basing science
education on a particular curriculum’s choice of what is
fundamental and necessary to know, out of a vast range of
possibilities. It also overcomes an inherent problem
withscience,which is therapidgrowth offactual
information,andthefrequent revision of previous findings. The
classroom approach to specific topics (plate tectonics, kinematics,
stoichiometry, the cell) must be conceptual, and grounded in
questions, evidence, reasoning, observation, and other key
processes, as each takes a characteristic form in the particular
topic area beingaddressed.Thisapproachvalues learning in depth as
opposed to broad “coverage” of topics. The number of possible
topics is growing rapidly, so the inquiry strategy is to build
strong qualitative and quantitative understanding, which provides a
lasting mastery of scientific habits of mind.
This characteristic focus is ill-represented by the sound-bite
summary, “processversuscontent.”The inquirybased approach at its
most developed eliminates thisdichotomyintwoways. First, it adopts
the view of science as it is actually practiced: science as the
webs of explanation (theory) by which we seek to make sense of the
phenomena of the world (Latour and Woolgar �986; Hawkins �965).
Thus, the learning of content is embedded in an explanatory
context, which has its roots in questions and methods for answering
them. Second, it sees that a
fundamentalgoalof scienceeducation is helping the child come to
see how questions, predictions, reasoning and reflection about
evidence (data) and the use of investigative methods are an
intrinsic part of the changing fabric of conjecture and theory
which is scientific knowledge (Driver et al. 2000, Harlen 2000).
Finally, it conveys the sense of the historical development of
science ideas, as a dialogue between scientists and nature, with
answers leading necessarily to new questions, and a growing
“approximation to truth” (Medawar �984).
Thus,whileacurriculumwillnecessarilymakechoicesabout
thestructure of the knowledge of a particular field, and the
sequencing and cumulation of ideas, the curriculum as enacted must
be consistent with the actual science that is being encountered,
reducing the great distance between “school science” and “real
science.”
How does learning proceed? Research on minds and brains over the
last century has consistently revealed that mastery of any kind of
knowledge is a complex process, in which far more is involved than
simple factual recall (Bransford et al. 2000). The educational
community over the past century has articulated a rich idea of what
outcomes are hoped for. For example, theNationalScienceStandards
envision students who are able to:
• experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and
understanding the natural world;
• use appropriate scientific pro cesses and principles in making
personal decisions;
• engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about
matters of scientific and technological concern; and increase
�0 Science educator
-
It has long beenargued that humansmost effectively learnin
social settings inwhich an individual’s understandings
andassumptions are tested and refined in dialogue with peers and
with experts
their economic productivity throughtheuseof theknowledge,
understanding, and skills of the scientifically literate person in
their careers. (NRC 2000)
Such standards assume that the student will be good at the
evaluation of evidence and the use of evidence in constructing an
effective argument for or against a proposition or a course of
action. The student will be able to recognize false reasoning, as
well as counterfactual claims, and marshal and deploy her knowledge
of fact and reasoning in a flexible manner which is exercised
throughout her life.
Although this includes an understanding of science process (what
Medawar calls the “hypothetico-deductive method,”) (Medawar �984)
it also requires experience and skill at the negotiating of
meaning. This means engaging in debate and discussion about science
questions and the relevant data.
It has longbeen argued that humans mosteffectively learn
insocial settings in which an individual’s understandings and
assumptions are tested and refined in dialogue with peers and with
experts (Dewey �964, Vygotsky
�978). Thus the dialogue between the scientist and the natural
world must be accompanied by a dialogue between the scientist and
her colleagues. This is as true for the “student scientist” as for
the practicing researcher.
How does a teacher facilitate the growth of science
understand-ing? Given the assumption that the learner must actively
construct his own knowledge, engaging both in a dialogue with
nature (working with the phenomena) and in a dialogue with peers
and experts, what does the teacher contribute? The teacher’s
expertise is fundamentally two-fold: on the one hand, she has an
understanding of learning; on the other hand, she has a rich and
flexible knowledge of her subject matter. This dual expertise
becomes evident in the teacher’s approach to the creation of a
rigorous,question-richscienceculture in the classroom, and also
evident in the teacher’s professional activities outside the
classroom (Harlen 2000, Bransford 2000). It is important in reading
this description of the inquiry-oriented teacher’s approach that
the classroom is not isolated and autonomous: while the teacher’s
skill and intent are basic requisites for the realization of an
inquiry culture, as we describe here, the school and district
cultures can play a powerful supporting or inhibiting role, and
especially in the era of high-stakes testing.
• Student understandings are at the core. The inquiry-based
classroom includes teacher inquiry into the students’ actual
understandings and mastery of the topics and methods addressed. The
goal is the embedding of science informationwithina framework of
cognitive and investigative skills, and within the framework of
modern science and scientific history.
While lectures may be an essential ingredient, a primarily
frontal teaching style cannotaccommodate the range of
activitiesthat are necessary to students’ gaining mastery of
material. Most pedagogical techniques can find their value in such
a classroom, but the teacher needs to make sure that they are
deployed in such a way that student questions, investigations,
evidentiary arguments, and data analysis and presentation are at
the core. While lectures may be an essential ingredient, a
primarily frontal teaching style cannot accommodate the range of
activities thatarenecessarytostudents’ gaining mastery of material.
Multiple classroomconfigurationsandavariety of modes of student
activity also providea teacherwith therichestandmost timely
informationabout the students’ progress and problems (Driver et al.
2000, Falk and Drayton 2000b).
• School science is not divorced from “real” science. Science is
practicedinacontextofconstantdiscovery, argument, and conjecture,
within an explanatory framework or paradigm. This paradigm can both
be seen as the state of current understanding, and also as a
register of questions and directions for the creation of new
knowledge. Teachers who seek to stimulate mastery in their students
are able to show how the classroom’s activities relate to lines of
inquiry in the history of science (whether past
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 ��
-
investigations or current events). In this way, student
meaning-making is situated within the enterprise of sci-
Conceptual learningtakes time for reflection, for cycles of
experience anddiscussion, and often includes surprises. ence
outside the classroom (Harlen 2000, Driver et al. �994).
• Conceptuallearningtakestime. Conceptual learning takes time
for reflection, for cycles of experience and discussion, and often
includes surprises. Teachers focused on successful student learning
are therefore engaged in a battle to see to it that there is enough
time for students both to make sense of their investigations, and
carry through the core academic task of putting their learning into
words and other forms that are communicable, relatable to the
findings of the field, and amenable to critique and revision.
• The teacher’s interest in the content is infectious and
inspiring The teacher is the representative of science in the
classroom. A science teacher conveys some critical information
about science by his personal engagementwith thematerial.Science
thuscomesacrossasbothan important topic (for example, because of
applications of scientific findings) and as a field for human
enjoyment and creativity.Thegoalofascience-literate society rests
on students’ coming to see both reasons for staying engaged with
science.
2. The inquiry-oriented classroom What are key characteristics
of the
inquiry-oriented classroom which embodies the inquiry
strategy?Before addressing this, it is worth noting that “inquiry”
is a complex, a strategy with many possible tactics, and therefore
the extent or quality of inquiry in a classroom may not be apparent
in one observation.Wesuggest that three key questions can be very
revealing of the state of inquiry in the classroom (Drayton and
Falk 200�). These questions are:
�. Who is doing the intellectual work?
2. What purposes do hands-on activities serve?
3. What is valued by the students and the teacher?
1. Who is doing the intellectual work? Over the past century,
almost everyone has learned in classrooms in which the teacher
dominates the conversation in the classroom (Rothstein �998,
Sarason �996, Cuban �994). Studies of classroom discourse
repeatedly show that in most classrooms it is the teacher who asks
most of the questions. Unfortunately, these questions most often
require short, “fill-in-the-blank” answers provided at significant
pauses in a teacher discourse, rather than contributions revealing
conceptual understanding. Thus in such classes it is the teacher
who does the sense-making, provides the narrative, and tends to
drive the class session on to a “successful” conclusion which may
in fact have resulted in very little student learning at all
(Drayton and Falk 200�b). In this sense, the teacher is the one who
is doing the most important share of the intellectualworkin
theclass, rather than the student. This is not to devalue
thevalueofaneffective teacher lecture
or commentary, if it is used as part of anoverall
strategyaimedatsupporting the students’ active engagement with the
substance of the classroom. In our work, themosteffective
inquiry-based classrooms include large stretches of
student-to-student talk — problem-solving, investigation,
discussion and argumentation about evidence, conclusions, and
meanings.
2. What purposes do hands-on
activitiesserve?Althoughmanyteachers see hands-on activities as key
to themodernscienceclassroom,andkey to a definition of an inquiry
approach (Falk and Drayton 200�b), we have found that it is
important to examine the ways that these activities serve student
sense-making and mastery, in order tounderstand thestateof inquiry
in the classroom. In our research in 40 Massachusetts middle-school
classrooms, we have seen three broad types of hands-on activities
(in prep).
a. Activities that are used to con-vey content. This is the
rarest of the three types; yet it is the one that most closely
approaches the goal of active student engagement in reasoning and
investigation in science. In activities of this type, an
investigation or challenge is the primary means
throughwhichcurricularcontent is conveyed. For example, we
observedaneighth-gradeproject
Studies of classroom discourse repeatedly show that in most
classrooms it is the teacher who asks most of the questions.
�2 Science educator
-
in which teams of students investigated different aspects of a
nearby ecosystem, each contributingapiece to thewholepicture. This
project provided both the need and the mechanism to learn about
nutrient cycling, trophic levels, community ecology and
environmental variables such as water quality, soil types, and
dissolvedoxygen —notonly the topics, but the methods of
measurementandresearch.Activities of this kind may include areas
for significant student initiative or input, whether in the design
of the question, the design or choiceofmethod,or theanalysis of
data and interpretation of its significance. Such an activity is
challenging to manage successfully, and can be costly in terms of
time. Yet if it is not a regular feature of the classroom, the
students cannot be expected to gainthekindofgraspofscientific
reasoning, process, and results that our standards increasingly
demand.
b. Activities that engage atten-tion,raisequestions,orchange
pace. Perhaps this is the commonest type of activity. While the
core curricular content is conveyed in some other mode, such as
teacher lecture or text, this kind of activity serves an
importantpurpose. Itcanprovide an introduction to a new topic area,
or an opportunity to engage a phenomenon concretely, or a chance to
learn an important investigative technique in practice and
application. Such activities, which may focus on
qualitativeunderstanding,canbe motivating, may raise questions
or activate previous knowledge, or may help students understand
something thatotherapproaches have left opaque.
c. Activities that primarily illus-trate content. In our
research, we sometimes saw hands-on activities that seemed to
provide little in the way of student cognitive activity. Sometimes
this is because the activity itself has little content, for
example, the creation of a geological time-line using a pre-fab
format, and then recreating it using computer software. While this
activity integrated the use of a software tool, it otherwiseadded
noconceptualdepthor increased investigative skill. More troubling
are examples in which an activity is conducted in such a way that
potential benefits are not realized. For example, in one classroom
students placed cut-outs of dinosaur species on a map of the world.
An effective use of this activity would have given familiarity with
a prime data-set bearing on the theory of continental drift, as a
prelude to an interpretation of this data, and its relation to
other lines of evidence relevant to this major paradigm-shift in
earth science. In this class, the evidentiary value of the
dinosaurs’ distribution was never addressed, and thus a potentially
useful activity was reduced to a simple exercise with scissors and
glue.
All three types of hands-on activitiesmaycoexist ina
teacher’spractice. In implementing an inquiry strategy, however, it
is worth examining the relative proportions in which they occur,
and whether some types, such
as (a), are present at all. The quality of the activities should
be evaluated in the lightof thepreviousquestion,Who is doing the
intellectual work? It can be valuable to ask questions such as
these: In thisactivity,whoischoosing the question to investigate,
the teacher or the student? Who is choosing the method? Who is
doing the analysis, and proposing the solution? Such an evaluation
relates naturally as well to our next question, which is about the
building of shared values and markers of quality in the science
classroom.
3. What is valued by the students and by the teacher? What
represents success in the classroom? Does the teacher help create a
climate of sense-making, critical reasoning, and clear
articulationofconceptsandprocesses? If classroom work (including
reading, group work, projects, teacher talk, and other elements) is
always placed in the context of a growing control of good science
process, including data collection, analysis, interpretation, and
presentation, this then sets norms which feed directly into student
and teacher assessments of student learning. Students should
understand what thegoalsare for thecurrentcurriculum unit, and
understand the teachers’ criteria for quality. These criteria
should be rooted in careful science process, effective reasoning
and use of evidence, and skills of interpretation and presentation
of qualitative as well as quantitative results. Thus the classroom
activities are tied to rubrics for success, in such a way as
tobemutually supportive (NRC2000, Harlen 2000, Falk �993).
3. Features of a school that is hospitable to inquiry
Schoolculture caneither supportor hinder the development and
survival
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 �3
-
of a classroom of the sort described
above.Theteacherhassomeautonomy “once the classroom door closes,”
but less than is sometimes thought (Falk and Drayton 2000b; Sarason
�996). We have seen how even experienced inquiry-oriented teachers
are less likely toscaffoldrichinvestigations,or spend time on
rigorous qualitative and quantitative reasoning, if the school
climate isnot favorable. Inanunfavorableclimate,new teachers, or
teachers new to an inquiry orientation, can be prevented from the
reflective practice andexperimentation that is required to become
comfortable and flexible inquiry-oriented teachers. What are key
features of a favorable climate? Our observations suggest the
following 5 points, which are supported by many studies of the
effects of the school on other classroom innovations:
a. Flexibility in scheduling is an essentialnutrient.Wehaveseen
that another critical resource for teachers is time.This, too,
seems a truism(Hargreaves�994),but it
hasparticularbearingoninquiryoriented science. If there is not some
opportunity for extended class periods (whether through flexible
scheduling or the availability of block periods), certain important
classroom activities are very difficult to implement, for example
data collection that
A school’s deployment of resources can either support or
hinderthe development ofan inquiry-orientedclassroom.
If the teacher is to understand science practice, and supportits
growth in his students, he must experience science first-hand.
is unpredictable in duration (as in taking water or air quality
samples). Natural phenomena, and reasoning about them, do not
always fit well into 45-min ute class periods, and the more they
are incorporated into the classroom, the more important a flexible
schedule becomes.
b. Good curriculum materials help support the growth of inquiry.
Aschool’s deployment of resources can either support or hinder the
development of an inquiry-oriented classroom. It is obvious that
flexible, adequate curriculum materials are important, and the best
of these will not only provide the teacher with specific, concrete
guidance for classroom activities, but will alsosupport the
teacher’sgrowth of skill in supporting student thinking and
mastery.
c. Schools should support con-nections between the class-room
and science outside the classroom. Since the inquiry-oriented
classroom seeks to engagestudentswith theactivity of science, as
well as its findings, the students need contact with working
scientists in their community, and ( in age-appro
priate forms) see science being practiced. The frequently-seen
visit of a scientist to the classroom should be supplemented
bysitevisits, collaborationswith scientists on classroom or
extracurricular investigations, and (for older students) shadowing
opportunities or internships.
d. Professional development should include teacher
experi-encewithscienceresearch. Too often,professionaldevelopment
for science teachers begins and ends with the learning of new
curriculum units. If the teacher is tounderstandsciencepractice,
and support its growth in his students, he must experience science
first-hand. Teachers should be supported in making connections with
scientists in their area, following up on their owninterests,
andwhenpossible taking part in science research of some kind. This
experience lends a level of authenticity and confidence to the
teacher as the representative of science in the
classroom,andgoesanimportant distance towards eliminating the
stultifying distance between “school science” and “real science”
(Drayton and Falk 2000; Falk and Drayton �998, �997).
e. The school should foster a cli-mateofcollegialexchange,and
dedicatedtimeforit tohappen. In our work, we have found that the
single most effective change that many schools could make to
support the implementation of inquiry-based science is to support
substantive talk among the science teachers about curricular
content and pedagogical
�4 Science educator
-
Teachers learn just as students do, through experiment,
reasoning about data, and discussion with peerswho are exploring
similar questions and challenges.
approaches to it. Teachers learn just as students do, through
experiment, reasoning about data, and discussion with peers who are
exploring similar questions and challenges (Huberman �993). With
the dizzying changes in the field of science, the burgeoning of
curriculum materials and other resources, and the implementation of
new standards and other state mandates, teachers more than ever
need an opportunity to discuss, evaluate, and plan with their
colleagues. Such conversations should focus both on science
content, and about student understandings and student work. This
kind of collegial exchange creates a culture of continuous
improvement, but cannot do so if it is a rare event, or random
moments snatched from time to time. It is a core resource for a
strong science program (Falk and Drayton 200�b, 2000b).
4. Features of a district that is hospitable to inquiry
Aninquiry-orientedschoolrequires a favorable district climate.
Increasingly, the focus on the systemic nature of schooling has
produced research
showing the powerful effects that the school district can have
in setting expectations, and fostering or hindering the realization
of a strong science program (Falk and Drayton 200�b, Spillane and
Callaghan 2000, Raizen and Britten �997). Of course, district
policy can be modulated by school policy, but we suggest that the
following are areas in which the district is especially
important.
a. Coordinateinnovationsaround a clear pedagogical vision. It is
sobering to make a list of the rangeof innovations, reforms,or
policy mandates that are being implemented in any district in the
country. From drug-education policy to the use of technology to the
implementation of inquiry-based science — the
manymandatescomefrommany sources, and thus there is a real danger
that they will not be implementedwithanypedagogical strategy to
coordinate them. In light of the specific needs we have mentioned
for resources, for professional development, and for patterns of
collegial exchange, there is a real danger that inquiry-based
science can be inadvertently hindered by other good reforms in one
way or another (Drayton and Falk 200�b, Falk and Drayton 2000b,
Knapp et al. �998). Therefore, the district can play an important
role in the establishment of inquiry-based science, by articulating
and advocating a pedagogical vision consonant with
thedevelopmentofaculture of inquiry.
b. Buffertheschoolsandteachers against the negative effects of
high-stakes testing. A vision
for inquiry can be derailed by competing pressures for high
scores on state-mandated tests. The advent of the standards
movement, followed in most states by mandatory testing, has
broughtnewpressures tobearon the classroom, and often takes the
form of pressure for more coverage of material, and undue time
spent on test-preparation. We have found that a district that
We have found that a district that has developed a clearvision
of inquiry-based science, and has embedded its pedagogy,
assessment, and curriculum, can counteract many of thenegative
effects ofhigh-stakes testing.
has developed a clear vision of inquiry-based science, and has
embedded it in pedagogy, assessment, and curriculum, can counteract
many of the negative effects of high-stakes testing (Falk and
Drayton 200�a). By contrast, teachers in districts that have not
developed and implemented such a vision are much more vulnerable to
pressure to surrender their pedagogy to
test-preparation,withnegative effects thathavebeenascertained
widely(FalkandDrayton200�a, Heubert and Hauser �999).
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 �5
-
c. Support the development of teacherlearningandpedagogi-cal
talk. Many districts coordinate professional development for their
teachers; many districts also develop detailed science curriculum
guidelines, and often coordinate the purchase of materials with
their curriculum. Therefore, the district has an opportunity
toprovideleadershipin thedevelopmentofopportunities for
between-school or cross-district collegial exchange among the
science teachers, of the sort discussed above for the faculty of a
particular school. Districts where inquiry is deeply embedded in
the culture have created structures for cross-school dia-
The inquiry-basedstrategy for science education is a complexone,
and requires much care and clarity of vision at everylevel, from
district to classroom.
logue.Thesestructures reinforce the pedagogical vision of the
district, as well as engaging the teachers in informed evaluation
of the content of that vision, and the curriculum that is used to
implement it (Falk and Drayton 2000).
In summary The inquiry-based strategy for
science education is a complex one, and requires much care and
clarity of
vision at every level, from district to classroom. Yet this
complexity arises from the nature of the subject matter itself, and
the standards for good science learning which have been developed
with increasing clarity in the past decade. Therefore, an
inquiry-based program is most closely matched to the imperatives of
its subject matter, being calculated to enable the learner to think
critically while continuing to learn, and to motivate the learner
to continue learning, by scaffolded participation in the core of
science — asking questions of nature, and building the remarkable
and dynamic edifice of explanation and conjecture that is
science.
This cumulative, strategic growth of reasoning power and
scientific understandingmakes importantdemands on teachers,
schools, and districts. These demands, for good materials but even
more for teacher learning and collegial talk, appropriatedeployment
of materials and time, and consistent pedagogical vision from the
district level on down, follow from the very nature of the subject
matter of modern science,andfromourbestunderstandingof learningand
teaching.Thus, science education is doubly systemic: it takes place
in the layered system of the classroom, school, and district, and
also takes its place in the web of organized wonder and
investigation that is the scientific enterprise.
References Altobell, C., J. Falk, and B. Drayton
(in prep.) Three models of hands-on activities and their
relation to the inquiry-based classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: TERC,
Inc.
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (eds) (2000) How
People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Cuban, L. (�994) How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
Americanclassrooms1890-1990.New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (�9�0) Science as subject matter and as method.
Science 3�(787):�2�-�27.
Dewey, J. (�964)[�897] My pedagogic creed. In R.D. Archambault
(ed) John Dewey on education. New York: Random House.
Drayton,B.andJ.K.Falk(200�a)Tell-tale signs of the
inquiry-oriented classroom. Bulletin of the National Assoc. of
Secondary School Principals. 85 (623): 24-34.
Drayton, B. and J. Falk (200�b) Reforms incollision:
overlappingmandatesand systemic strategies in six
Massachusettsdistricts.PaperpresentedtoAERA annual meeting, April
200�.
Drayton, B. and J. Falk (2000) Dimensions that shape
teacher-scientist collaborations for inquiry-based teacher
enhancement. Paper presented to American Educational Research
Assoc. annual meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2000.
Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne (2000) Establishing the
norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education
84: 287-3�2.
Driver, R.P. , H. Asoko, J. Leach, E. Mortimer, and P. Scott
(�994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.
Educational Researcher 23:5-�2.
Falk, J. and B. Drayton (200�a) High Stakes Accountability and
the Inquiry Based Classroom: Complementary of Colliding Visions of
Reform. Paper presented to AERA annual meeting, April 200�.
Falk, J and B. Drayton (200�b) Teachers’ Definitions of
Inquiry-basedscience in the context of systemic reform. Paper
presented to AERA annual meeting, April 200�.
Falk, J. andB. Drayton (2000) Cultivating a culture of inquiry.
Hands On! Vol. 23 (2): pg �ff).
�6 Science educator
-
Falk, J. and B. Drayton (�998) Before the innovation hits the
classroom: teachers’ self-image as an element of teacher
enhancement. Paper presented to American Educational Research
Assoc. annual meeting.
Falk, J.K. (�993). A vision of classroom
assessment.PreparedfortheMassachusetts Department of Education.
Harlen,W.(2000)Teaching, learning,and assessing Science 5-12.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Hargreaves, A. (�994) Changing teach-ers, changing times:
Teachers’ work culture in the post-modern age. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hawkins, D. (�965) Messing about in science. Science and
children 2:5-9.
Huberman, M. (�993) The model of the teacheras
independentartisan in teachers’professional relations. InTeachers’
work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts, edited by J.W. Little
and M.W. McLaughlin. New York: Teachers College Press.
Knapp, M.S. , J.D. Bamburg, M.C. Ferguson, and P.T. Hill (�998)
Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals
in school. Educational Policy �2:397-4�8.
Kohn, Alfie (�999) The schools our children deserve. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (�986) Labora-tory life. (2nd ed).
Princeton: Pinceton University Press.
Medawar, Peter (�984) The limits of science. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heubert, J.PandR.M.Hauser (eds) (�999) High Stakes: testing for
tracking, pro-motion, and graduation. Washington, D.C. National
Academy Press.
Huberman, Michael. (�993). The model of the independent artisan
in teachers’ professional relations. In Little, Judith Warren,
Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin (eds). Teachers’ work: Individuals,
colleagues,contexts.NewYork:Teachers College Press.
NationalResearchCouncil (2000) Inquiry and the National Science
Education Standards.Washington,D.C.:National Academy Press.
Raizen, S. and R.D. Britton (�997) Bold Ventures, vols �, 2.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Rothstein, R. (�998) The way we were? New York: The Century
Foundation.
Sarason, S. (�996). Revisiting ‘The cul-ture of the school and
the problem of change.’ NewYork: TeachersCollege Press.
Spillane, J.P. and K.A. Callaghan (2000) Implementing state
standards for science education: what district policy makers make
of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
37:40�-425.
Vygotsky,L.S. (�978) MindinSociety: the development of higher
psychological processes.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University
Press.
Footnotes
�. NSF Grant #9804929 “The Inquiry-based classroom in context:
bridging the gap between teachers’practice and policy
mandates.”
Brian Drayton and Joni Falk are principal investigators on the
NSF-funded Inquiry in context at TERC in Cambridge, Mass. Brian
Drayton, an ecologist and linguist, and Joni Falk, an educational
researcher, have directed several teacher professional development
projects. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to
brian-drayton@terc. edu.
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 �7
-
Richard A. Huber, Christopher J. Moore
High Stakes Testing and Science
Learning Assessment
An argument is made for the use of interactive computer
application as a vehicle for incorporating more authentic
assessments of students’ learning of inquiry into
In a recent publication (Huber and Moore, 2000) we argued that
science education supervisors would be well advised to work towards
ensuring that well meaning but misguided efforts to promote
educational reform through standardized testingdonotundermine true
“standards-based” reforms—that is, reforms consistent with those
envisioned in the National Science Edu-cation Standards (National
Research Council, �996). In that article we discussed how the
Standards foresaw the potential for problems arising out of poorly
conceived implementations of standardized testing and warned the
education community about them—andprovidedguidanceonhow to prevent
or mitigate some of the potential damages poorly conceived testing
programs might cause. Among theguidanceprovidedin theStandards are
admonitions to science education supervisors to champion the cause
for the use of appropriate and valid assessment tools. (For the
purposes of this discussion, appropriate tools are
definedasthosethatpurport tomeasure theachievementof
learningobjectives congruent with the Standards; valid tools are
those that do measure what theypurport tomeasure). In thispaper, we
provide a follow-up to our previous discussion on the threat of
high stakes testing with recommendations
standardized testing.
Standardized tests within high stakestesting programs clearly
act as adominant force in the current streams of thought and
politicshaping American K-12 education. on how science education
supervisors might mitigate the negative impact of high stakes
accountability testing by championingthecausefor thedevelopment and
use of more appropriate and valid assessment tools. Specifically,
this paper discusses the possibly beneficial rolesofnewinteractive
Internet technologies as tools for assessing inquiry-based science
learning.
Standardized tests within high stakes testing programs clearly
act as a dominant force in the current streams of thought and
politic shaping American K-�2 education. In our previous article,
we described how accountability testing was a strong and growing
force, noting President Clinton’s endorsement of accountability
testing as an indication of the
breadthofsupport for thetesting.Since that time, emphasisonusing
standardized tests in accountability testing has increased, and the
federal support for testing of “all students at all grades” has
increased under the Bush
administration.Clearly,highstakesaccountability testing is not a
passing fad.
It is equally clear that many of the changes wrought by
testing-based reforminitiativesareantithetical to the goalsof
theStandards. Toasubstantial degree, standardized testing is
growing as a driving force in establishing curriculum goals and
methods of instruction (Brady, 2000; Brandt, �989; CNN, �999; Jones
et al., �999; Huber andMoore,2000;Kohn,200�;Kunen, �997; Merrow,
200�; Neill, �998; Shapiro, �998). As aptly stated in one popular
press publication, high stakes accountability testing has become,
“the latest silver bullet designed to cure all that ails public
education” (Kunen,�997,p.24).Othershavemore strongly condemned
current accountability testing practices. Kohn (200�), for example,
refers to standardized
Clearly, high stakes accountability testing isnot a passing
fad.
�8 Science educator
-
Tests typically emphasize the wrong content because all too
often that which is easyto assess is not that which is important
tolearn, especially in thesciences. testing as a “monster” which
makes it “… difficult, perhaps even impossible, to pursue the kinds
of reforms that can truly improve teaching and learning” (p.
350).
The central problem with current use of standardized tests
within accountability testing is two fold. First, as noted above,
the tests play a strong part in shaping curriculum. Secondly the
tests typically assess the wrong “stuff.” Tests typically emphasize
the wrong content because all too often that which is easy to
assess is not that which is important to learn, especially in the
sciences. Standardized testing typically emphasizes the
memorization of objective facts learned in isolation through
practices favoring “superficial” levelsof studentengagement rather
than the development of richlystructuredknowledgeandupperlevel
thinking skills learned through pedagogues requiring more active
engagement on the part of the student (Huber and Moore, 2000; Jones
et al., �999, Kohn, 200�; Livingston et al., �989; Madaus, �99�;
Merrow, 200�; National Research Council, �996; Neill, �998; Neill
and Medina, �989). Thus, in the absence of more authentic
assessment strategies than those
typicallyemployedinstandardizedtesting, the contemporary wave of
political
support foreducational reformthrough accountability testing can
be expected to push science education practices away from
inquiry-based instruction as envisioned in the Standards (Huber and
Moore, 2000).
Strong concerns also have been raised about bias in standardized
tests, which would unquestionably cause the tests to work against
the Standards’ goals of equity in science education (CNN, �999;
Darling-Hammond, �99�; Kohn, 200�; Neill, �998; Neill and Medina,
�989). Additionally, there is strongevidence that accountability
testing places undue and detrimental pressures on teachers
andstudents.Pressures to“teach to the test” experienced by teachers
work against the Standards’goals of changing the roles of teachers
from those of teachers as followers and technicians to roles of
teachers as creative leaders and contributing stakeholders in
reform initiatives (Huber and Moore, 2000; Jones et al., �999;
Haladyna et
Pressures to “teach to the test” experiencedby teachers
workagainst the Standards’goals of changingthe roles of teachers
from those of teachers as followers and technicians to roles of
teachers as creative leaders and contributingstakeholders in reform
initiatives.
al., �99�; Smith, �99�). In a similar manner, testing pressure
on teachers and students alike work against Standards’ goals
focused on affective domain learning, suchaspromotionof students’
love of learning, students’ willingness to take risks in learning,
andstudents’takingownershipof their learning (Huber and Moore,
2000; Hill and Wingfield, 1984; Jones et al., �999; Kohn, 200�;
Merrow, 200�; Shapiro, �998).
The Standards predicted how high stakesaccountability
testingprotocols, ascurrently implemented,wouldwork against the
goals of Standards-based reforms. First, the Standards correctly
point out that testing protocols that arise out of political
agendas are apt to be too short sighted to be effective in
establishing or furthering the types of substantial reforms called
for in the Standards. The Standards state,
New administrations often make radical changes in policy and
initiativesand thispractice is detrimental toeducationchange, which
takes longer than the typical 2- or 4- year term of elected office.
Changes that will bring contemporaryscienceeducation practices to
the level of quality specified in the Standards will require a
sustained effort” (National Research Council, �996, p.
23�-232).
Secondly, the criteria stated in Assessment Standards A through
E within theNationalScienceEducation Standards effectively head off
most current testing-basedreforminitiatives at
thepass(NationalResearchCouncil, �996, p. 78-86). These standards
call for assessments strategies and tools that are well-thought
out, deliberate in design, and consistent with the decisions they
are designed to inform
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 �9
-
(Standard A). The assessments must
measureopportunitytolearn(Standard B), and they must be valid
(Standard C), fair (StandardD),andsound(Standard E). As the review
of literature on standardized testing above suggests, there is good
reason to doubt that current implementations of standardized
testing meet these criteria.
For the purposes of this discussion, Assessment Standard C is
particularly relevant. This Standard states, “The technical quality
of the data collected is well matched to the decision and actions
taken on the basis of their interpretation.” An explicitly stated
sub-requirement of this standard is that, “Assessment tasks are
authentic.” In elaborating on this standard, the Standards
specifically point out the importance of assessing students’
abilities to conduct inquiries and point out that multiple-choice
question formats—as are typically used on standardized tests—lack
validity and are “inappropriate” for assessing student learning of
inquiry skills. Thus a different kind of standardized test item is
warranted for assessing inquiry learning.
Importantly, the Standards place at least part of the
responsibility for promotingthedevelopmentandimplementation of
authentic assessment toolsonscienceeducationsupervisors at the
district level of administration (see, for example, National
Research Council, �996, p. 240). The Standards take this position
in recognition of the fact that assessment often drives instruction
and, therefore, assessment practices must be changed if teaching
practices are to change (National Research Council, �996,
especially pages75-78).Towardthisend, interactive computer
applications have been recognized as a possible means of
An examination of science education resources available on the
Internet suggeststhat interactive computer-based science
applications mayprovide a useful means of assessing
studentslearning of inquiry-based science content.
incorporating more authentic assessments of students’ learning
of inquiry into standardized testing (Moore and Huber, in
press).
An examination of science education resources available on the
Internet suggests that interactive computer-based science
applications may provide a useful means of assessing students
learning of inquiry-based science content. In a paper on
interactive inquiry-based Internet activities (Moore and Huber, in
press) we describe an example of how an interactive computer
application, based upon an existing Internet application, could be
used to assess student learning of concepts related to density and
the science process skills involved in students’ inquiry-based
learning of those concepts (see “Density Lab” at
http://ExploreScience.com). If such assessments were used, and if
the assessments influenced teaching decisions as expected, the use
of such assessments could be expected to encourage teachers to use
an inquiry-based approach. In fact, it is difficult to
imaginehowstudentscouldperform
well on the assessment unless they were taught about density
through an inquiry-based approach.
Ascurrently implemented, thedensity exploration Internet
application allows students to work with items displayed on the
computer screen, clicking and dragging displays of irregular
objects onto displayed balances (to measure their masses) and into
displayed graduated cylinders (to measure their volumes) in order
to obtain the information needed to calculate their densities. We
proposed that, with only minor changes, the computer program could
be altered into an assessment tool that could be used to measure
how well students understood the concept of density and how well
they were able to measure the density of various objects, using
balances and graduated cylinders. Because the computer could track
the steps students performed in completing assigned tasks, scores
could be based upon effective use of science process and laboratory
manipulative skills, rather than merely selecting the best answer
from four or five multiple choice options.
At this time there are numerous inquiry-based interactive
Internet applications that, like the density lab example above, are
designed to facilitate students in conducting inquiries, using
simulated scientific equipment and/or researchsettings.Manyof these
applicationsmightbereadilymodified to create reasonably authentic,
highly valid, inquiry-basedassessment tools. Afew examples of the
types of assessment items that might be developed from existing
Internet resources are as follows:
• Inquiry learning of Newton’s lawsofmotioncouldbeassessed using
variations of a number
Science educator 20
http:http://ExploreScience.com
-
of applets found at Explore Science.com (http://Explore
Science.com) including “2D Collisions,” “Air Track,” “Golf Range,”
“Inclined Plane,” and “Shoot the Monkey.”
• Inquiry learning of the physics of soundcouldbeassessedusing
modificationsofapplets foundat (�)“Soundary,”anapplicationin the
ThinkQuest library of interactive science education applications
(http://www.thinkquest. org/library/index.html) and (2) “Doppler
Effect,” and “Interference Patterns,” included within the
ExploreScience.com web site.
• Inquiry learning of the physics of light could be assessed
using variationsofanumberofapplets also found at Explore Science.
com including “Additive Colors,” “Subtractive Colors,” and “Basic
Prism.”
• Inquiry learning of genetics could be assessed using applets
similar to those found at (�) “Mouse Genetics” at Explore
Science.com and (2) “Engineer a Crop” at Nova Hot Science
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ nova/hotscience/).
Anotherkindof interactive inquirybased Internet application
provides students with access to large data sets and powerful data
manipulation tools for exploring the data and testing hypothesis
using that data (Huber and Moore, 200�b; Moore and Huber, in
press). Examples of this type of site include “water on the web”
(http://wow.nrri.umn.edu/wow/index. html) and “river run”
(http://www. uncwil.edu/riverrun). Assessment tools based on these
application could be used to assess a variety of inquiry-
based learning, including knowledge and abilities in the areas
of environmental sciences; skills in the use of computer technology
to pose and test a hypothesis; and the use of multivariantgraphs
for interpreting,displaying, and explaining scientific data.
Water on the Web (WOW) provides water quality data collected
from remote underwater sampling stations placed in five Minnesota
lakes, which continuously sample and analyze water from different
depths in the lakes. “Data Visualization Tools,” accessible from
the WOW web site, allows students to see and explore relationships
among the data points that would probably be lost to them were the
data merely displayed as matrixes of numbers. Importantly, students
can, with a few points and clicks, change parameters that define
the dynamic graphic displays. Thus, the utilities provide simple
and engaging mediums for open exploration and
powerfuleffective tools forhypothesis testing. For example, in
an inquirybasedclassroomateachermightdirect students to use the
“color mapper” data visualization tool to explore lake
stratification. Under this scenario, the teacher might have
students define the parameterssothatwater temperature is
color-graphedanddissolvedoxygen is shown with a line graph, as
shown in Figure � (note that different students could be looking at
data from various lakesand atvarious time frames in this
example).Throughthe teacher-guided inquiry, students should quickly
discover how sharp gradients in temperature and dissolved oxygen
define the epilimnion strata at the surface of lakes.Studentscould
thenpredicthow other variables might behave around this boundary
and, ultimately, change system settings, and “run” animations to
test their hypotheses.
Data visualization tools within WOWare also well suited for
present-
Figure 1. Example of a Data Visualization Tool presentation of
Ice Lake in Northern Minnesota from Water on the Web.
Spring 2002 Vol. 11, no. 1 2�
http://wwwhttp://wow.nrri.umn.edu/wow/indexhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbhhttp:Science.comhttp:ExploreScience.comhttp://www.thinkquesthttp:Science.comhttp://Explorehttp:Science.com
-
ing clear pictures of various complex and
interestingphenomenaand events thatoccurwithin lakeecosystems. For
example because water is at its densest at 4°C, in a deep lake the
water at the bottom of the lake remains at 4°C year-round.
Consequently, as surface waters cool to this temperature in the
autumn and warm in the spring, the waters of a deep lake can
dynamically “turn over.” The color mapper tool is an ideal resource
for exploring and displaying the impactsof thisdynamic event.
River Run offers two main interactive data displays, the
Geographic Information Service (GIS) and the Data Visualization
Tool (DVT). GIS is a computer utility for mapping and analyzing
geographic locations and numerical data of events that occurred at
thoseplaces.This toolgives theuser thepowertolinkdatabasesandmapsto
create dynamic displays. The Data Visualization Tool is similar to
the color
mapper for lake data described above, with the exception that
the X-axis of the displayed graphs is analogous to the Y-axis in
the lake data. That is, in the lake graphs the vertical dimension
is used to map lake depth, whereas in the river graphs, the
horizontal axis of the graph maps the flow of the river (from
upstream on the left to downstream on the right).
Astrength of both of these applications is that they are well
equipped to facilitate student inquiries involving extensive
hypothesis formation and testing (Huber and Moore, 200�b; Moore and
Huber, In press). For example, Huber and Moore (200�b) describe how
the River Run data visualization tool can be used to invite
students into inquiries about the impacts of hurricanes on river
systems.
In their example, students are directed to explore the database
using the animated graphic displays and try
tofind“anomalies”orsuddendramatic
Figure 2. Example of a Data Visualization Tool presentation of
four water parameters during Hurricane Bonnie from the River Run
web site.
In their example, students are directed to explore the database
using the animatedgraphic displays andtry to find “anomalies”or
sudden dramatic changes in the datadisplays. changes in the data
displays. Students might discover the frame shown in Figure 2,
which shows, among other things, a dramatic spike in fecal coliform
bacteria and a drop in dissolved oxygen. Through guided
explorations of the River Run data base and other sources of
information (which are available online), students can “discover”
that these events were caused by the hurricane-induced failure of a
sewage treatment plant.
It isnotanunreasonableexpectation that utilities such as River
Run and WOW could be expanded to incorporate online assessments of
students’ performance in forming and testing hypotheses, such as
those discussed above using the data and data visualization tools
within the utilities. These assessment toolswouldbecompletely
authentic; they would assess students’ use of real scientific tools
(computer utilities designed to support scientific explorations of
large data sets), using authentic higher-order thinking science
process skills (interpreting graphs, predicting and inferring, and
hypothesis testing). Further, as proposed for the assessment item
on measuringdensity, thecomputercould track students’ steps in
exploring the data base and therefore assess the
Science educator 22
-
The Standards are unambiguous intheir call for science education
supervisorsto step into the fray ofeducational reforms. process of
students’ inquiries, as well as the outcome of the inquiries.
In conclusion, standardized accountability testing, as currently
implemented, works against more substantial and meaningful reform
initiatives, such as those envisioned in the National Science
Education Stan-dards.TheStandardsareunambiguous in their call for
science education supervisors to step into the frayofeducational
reforms. As part of that calling, the Standards ask science
education supervisors to step up to the plate in efforts to develop
and implement authentic assessment tools. Interactive computer
applications, such as those employed in K-�2 science education
applications currently available on the Internet, appear to
represent an as of yet largely untapped gold mine of resources for
developing authentic inquiry-learningassessment items.We urge
science supervisors to promote the development and implementation
of assessment tools congruent with those Internet applications.
References Brady,M.2000.Thestandards juggernaut.
Phi Delta Kappan 81(9). 648-65�. Brandt, R. (�989 May). On the
misuse of
testing: A conversation with George Madaus. Educational
Leadership, 26-29.
CNN: (�999 June �4). Standardized tests under fire. [Online].
Available: http:// cnn.com/US/9906/�5/standardized tests.
Darling-Hammond,L. (�99�,November.) The implications of testing
policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kap-pan, 220-225.
Haladyna,T.,Nolen,S.,&Haas,N.(�99�). Raised standardized
achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution.
Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2-7.
Hill, K., & Wingfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: Amajor
educational problem and what can be done about it. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(�), �05-�26.
Huber, R.A. & Moore, C.J. (200�a). A model for extending
hands-on science tobeinquiry-based.SchoolScienceand Mathematics,
101, 32-42.
Huber, R.A. & Moore, C.J. (200�b). Internet tools for
facilitating scientific inquiry. Meridian: A Middle School
Technologies Journal, 4(�), (Online,
�2pages).http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/archive_of_meridian/win200�/internet/index.htm
Huber, R.A. & Moore, C.J. (2000). Educational reform through
high stakes testing—don’t go there. Science Edu-cator, 9, 7-�3.
Jones, G.M., Jones, B.D., Hardin, B.,
Chapman,L.,Yarbrough,T.andDavis, M. (�999). The impact of high
stakes testing on teachers and students, Phi Delta Kappan 81(3).
�99-203.
Kohn, A., Thompson, S., Ohanian, S. and Eisner, E. (200�).
Fighting the tests: A practicalguide to rescuing our schools. Phi
Delta Kappan 82(5). 248-357.
Kunen, J.S. (�997 June �6). The test of their lives. Time
149(24).